Republicans want to raise voting age to 21

I never said that, I said you called it an 'it'

"I don't subscribe to gods."

good for you, neither do I

 

Like trying to kill Obamacare, about 100 times?

There wouldn't be expected to be, anything laborious about it; however one would also expect that the questioner actually wanted information about those suggesting the idea, so as to appraise the people's credibility, as Conservative pundits, influencers, and spokespersons. However, that had not been your intention, at all-- at least according to your subsequent post, if your words are anything to be believed:

FAW said: ↑
Since they are unlikely to be recognizable as you state, do you not understand that is precisely why I asked the question?

You are blathering on about how you think my question was "ridiculous" while at the same time, your answers are illustrating EXACTLY what I set out to illustrate by asking that question. This is not a serious proposal that is going to be seriously debated in the legislature. This is little more than the Daily Beast and the New Republic trying to stir sh*t for the express purpose of stirring sh*t. To call it much ado about nothing is an understatement.

Mission accomplished. Thank you for your assistance, albeit with a side of misplaced ire.

Naturally, the couple of peoples' names, I cited, were in no way, proof that this idea is "not...going to be seriously debated in the legislature." How could you possibly know this? Do you understand, even, the difference, between " knowing" and " expecting?" Do ideas that begin in the Right wing media, never make it to the House floor? Therefore, your post can only be translated, by a rational thinker, as saying, "because these people are not Congresspersons, this idea cannot be serious."

But, as I already explained-- though it is your wont to ignore the main point-- the OP's main point, had not been that this was "going to be debated in the legislature;" that idea comes from you. And it is also your basis, for your thinking you have made some point. Ridiculous.

The main idea, was that trying to restrict voting rights, from people who don't vote for their Party, is a natural reaction, for Republican minds, specifically, not for Democratic ones. How many more times, I wonder, will I need to explain this to you, before you actually acknowledge it, instead of making bogus arguments, that you only "prove," to be right, based on your own, non supported, personal assumptions of what others had meant, though which they had not said.

 

Making claims that call for the operation of another person's mind only erodes ones credibility. You are not qualified to speak for what I know.

 

Then don't post comments that cast doubt on your motives or strength of views.

The right wants to raise the voting age to reduce Democrat numbers. Period.

 

Who wants this? Did you have a citation, or did you just think you could float this turd absent any corroboration at all?

 

Some don't think it's right to prevent what your fellow human beings want.

A leading transgender health association has lowered its recommended minimum age for starting gender transition treatment, including sex hormones and surgeries.

The World Professional Association for Transgender Health said hormones could be started at age 14, two years earlier than the group’s previous advice, and some surgeries done at age 15 or 17, a year or so earlier than previous guidance. The group acknowledged potential risks but said it is unethical and harmful to withhold early treatment.

The association provided The Associated Press with an advance copy of its update ahead of publication in a medical journal, expected later this year. The international group promotes evidence-based standards of care and includes more than 3,000 doctors, social scientists and others involved in transgender health issues.
https://apnews.com/article/gender-transition-treatment-guidelines-9dbe54f670a3a0f5f2831c2bf14f9bbb

I'll take evidence based research over ignorance and bigotry every time.

 

Thats what I said.

 

that was not the reason why it was lowered. There was something called a draft and the Vietnam War. The "older" generation refused to fight, hence the draft, sending young men into Vietnam for a war that was becoming increasingly unpopular after national news broadcasts voiced their concerns. It was passed very quickly in the House and Senate and ratified also very quickly by the states. What do you think the song "Fortunate Son" was about?

 

Dude the draft has always been young men. Hell if I'd made it to 24 without being drafted I wouldn't have been drafted. It's been that way since before WWI.

 

Good for you! I'll take evidence of what I hear from de-transitioners who were PRESSURED into this stuff too young and regretted it.
You go ahead and keep listening to people that want to cash in on gender dysforia